Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 17.05.2016 passed in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2012 by which their application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has been rejected.
(2.) Order XLI Rule 27 CPC mandates that parties shall not be permitted to adduce additional evidence, oral or documentary, at the appellate stage, however, there are statutory exceptions engrafted under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. It is provided that if the document sought to be admitted in evidence has been refused by the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred which ought to have been admitted [clause (a)], or in a case where it is established that inspite of due diligence the document could not have been produced during the trial [clause aa], or the appellate court forms an opinion that the additional document needs to be admitted or a witness shall be examined, additional evidence may be taken at the appellate stage also [clause b]. Plea taken by the petitioners is that to corroborate their stand that their father did not make endorsement on sale deed dated 30.09.1950 his admitted signature as appearing on sale deed dated 18.04.1968 needs to be admitted in evidence. However, it is an admitted position that the sale deed dated 30.09.1950 is on record. By this sale deed the suit property was conveyed in favour of their father and while so, this sale deed would bear signature of their father. On merits, in the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that when sale deed dated 30.09.1950 is already on record, for comparing signature of the petitioners' father sale deed dated 18.04.1968 need not be taken in evidence.
(3.) No doubt the stage when the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC shall be decided is the stage of final hearing in the appeal, in the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.;